Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: SONEPAT in Satish Son Of Lehna vs The State Of Haryana on 22 October, 2008Matching Fragments
This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 1164-SB of 2000 filed by Satish and another and Criminal Appeal No. 1185-SB of 2000, filed by Raju alias Rajbeer, arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 16.10.2000, and the order of sentence dated 20.10.2000, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide which it convicted all the accused, for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' only) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of ten years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac each, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each, for having been found in possession of 500 grams, 500 grams and 1 KG., charas respectively, at the relevant time, falling within the ambit of commercial quantity, without any permit or licence.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 29.08.1999, Amar Dass, Sub Inspector/Station House Officer along with other police officials, was present at Sonepat T-point Gohana. Baljeet Singh, independent witness met them. He was having talk with him, when a secret information was received that a Crl. Appeal No.1164-SB of 2000 motorcycle bearing No. HR-11-9597 being ridden by Raju, Dharambir and Satish, who were indulging in the business of charas, was coming and they were bringing charas. He was also informed that in case a picket was held, they could be apprehended. A picket was held at T-point, Sonepat road, Gohana. A motorcycle came from the side of Panipat, at a very fast speed. The motorcycle did not stop, despite the signal having been given to it. The riders thereof tried to run away towards Sonepat. However, all the three persons i.e. rider and the pillion riders of the motorcycle, were apprehended by the police. The motorcycle was being ridden by Raju, while Satish and Dharambir were the pillion riders. Sub Inspector Amar Dass asked them, that he suspected that they were carrying contraband. He further told them that they could be searched, in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Written notice, in this regard, was also given to Satish and Dharambir. However, Raju alias Rajbeer, accused , managed to run away, from the spot, after leaving his polythene packet on the motorcycle. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was summoned through wireless message. Ashok Kumar, DSP, reached the spot, on whose directions, the search was conducted. 500 Grams charas was recovered from the possession of Satish, accused, which was kept by him, in the Crl. Appeal No.1164-SB of 2000 right side pocket of his pant, in polythene packet. 10 grams charas was separated as a sample. 500 Grams charas, was recovered from the possession of accused Dharambir, which he had kept in the right side pocket of his shirt. 10 grams charas was separated as a sample. One Kilogram charas kept on the handle of motorcycle, in a bag, left by Raju, accused, who managed to escape, was also recovered. 10 grams charas, was taken out as a sample. The samples so drawn, and the remaining charas, were converted into separate parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, along with motorcycle, vide a separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police station, on the basis whereof, the FIR was recorded. The site plan was prepared. Satish and Dharambir, accused were arrested. Raju, accused, was arrested later on. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned.
22. The District & Sessions Judge, Sonepat is also directed to ensure that the directions, referred to above, are complied with, within the time frame, and compliance report is Crl. Appeal No.1164-SB of 2000 sent immediately thereafter, to this Court.
23. The Registry shall keep track of the compliance of directions, and put up the file, immediately after the expiry of the stipulated period, whether the report is received or not.
(SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE October 22, 2008 dinesh